An Open Letter to the NAA, its Board of Governers, and Executive Director

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hey there!
This is just a note to let you know we are aware of the Facebook connect issues that are on going. While we work to resolve them we will be turning the feature off. Those of you who joined using Facebook please use the contact us link
Thanks!
The Support Team

An Open Letter to the NAA, its Board of Governers, and Executive Director

Dear NAA, NAA Management, and Board of Governers:

I have a number of concerns regarding the operations and management of the National Archery Association. Let me start by stating that I have been a member for a long time, and I am very fond of the NAA. Nevertheless, I am concerned about a number of recent events. It is unclear whether these events are all related, but I find each to be troublesome. More troublesome still is the level of secrecy and the lack of flow of information. Many have called for more transparency, and I have to agree. The NAA is a not for profit organization in place for the benefit of its dues paying membership. It has a dual role in that it is also the National Governing Body for archery in the United States, and so it therefore also has obligations to the USOC. My concerns:

1. There is supposedly a new set of by-laws. These are published on the www.usarchery.org website, but they are described as "proposed." The old by-laws stated that any change to the by-laws requires a two-thirds vote of the membership. The new by-laws were never put to a vote of the membership, but were supposedly instead required by the USOC. Now, which set of by-laws is the NAA operating under?

2. Why have the Board of Director elections postponed? Some of the director positions expire this year (supposedly in August), and others are lame duck in accordance with an agreement with the USOC. So after August 9, 2007, will there be any properly elected directors? Who will have the authority to oversee the management of the NAA after August 9?

3. Who is on the Nominating Committee? This committee is charged with selecting the board of director candidates that the membership will ultimately vote upon. Why should the membership of this committee be secret? The selection of director candidates is probably the most important function within the management of the NAA. Why is this process done in secret? Shouldn't the nominating committee be accountable for the slate of candidates that they present to the membership?

4. Who is responsible for oversight of the finances of the NAA? This is a particularly important question in light of the recent arrest of the former director of finance on alleged embezzlement charges. I understand that former President Lloyd Brown's efforts to examine the books of the NAA were thwarted. Why wouldn't the President of the organization be allowed to look at its books?

5. Why was Lloyd Brown removed from his position of President of the NAA? Was this related to his efforts to examine the books?

6. What is the present financial health of the NAA? Can members look at the books? Isn't a not for profit membership based organization responsible to its members?

7. Why does the NAA operate in such secrecy? We are often told to trust those who represent the membership of the NAA. But in light of recent events, this is becoming more difficult.

I love archery, and I love the NAA. But I am disturbed by what I am seeing. More disturbing is the fact that there is little or no information forthcoming from the management of the NAA. As such, this is an open invitation to the NAA, its current board of governers, and its management. Please take a few minutes and answer the concerns of your membership.

Sincerely,

Chris Olsen
Member since 1988

Always Strive to do What is Right
PM me if you'd like to own your own archery store in Huntsville, AL
BEST Zenit Riser
W&W Limbs
REDHDCHARM string loop material

Why wouldn't the President of the organization be allowed to look at its books?

This is a small excerpt from the original post......while I am not a member of the NAA, nor do I know that ANY wrongdoings have occured, I can address this question...

I looked on the NAA website, and found out that the NAA is indeed a non-profit organization operating under a 501(c)(3) code with the IRS.

That means that ANY dues paying member may make an appointment to review the most current financial statements available at the legal headquarters of the entity involved. It also means that ANY dues paying member may request in writing that a copy of the same financial statements be sent to them. The 501(c)(3) entity must comply with said written request within 30 days of receipt of the request, and the entity may charge a nominal fee for copies and postage.

I've been sitting by watching the commotions, simply left shaking my head. I'm a very interested in the health of the NAA as it was designed and intended, and I have been quite concerned over the actions and quietness of the NAA as of late.

I have to agree that these, and probably more answers need to be addressed immediately by the NAA. It would probably be prudent to give them some time to formulate a response, which would most likely be a week or so after Nationals at the earliest......a month late for these answers (if not more) unfortunately.

No one wants to call out anyone, but there comes a point that the kid gloves need to come off, and the hard questions need to be asked and answered, and corrections need made.....no matter how painfull.

Bring this letter to the membership meeting posted earlier. It needs publicly addressed.

Chris, you just outlined seven of the reasons that despite being a freakcurver most of my life I have never become a member of the NAA. I have been an NFAA member instead and I (as well as many other NFAA folks) have always felt that the NAA was an elitist club. There was always a cloak of secrecy around the NAA and I was never able to get any real info on it.

I sincerely hope that the end result of this (as well as a big shake up for positive reasons at the NFAA) will be a united archery association for the USA.........why can't we all shoot under the same roof? Lets hope it all ends well.

Chris, Great topics, I forwarded this to Brad Camp. After speaking to him in person today he told me he has prepared a statement to be released regarding each of your questions. He told me he is awaiting board approval and then would send it to me to post. Glad to see is is willing to work on the transparency problem.

Chris, Great topics, I forwarded this to Brad Camp. After speaking to him in person today he told me he has prepared a statement to be released regarding each of your questions. He told me he is awaiting board approval and then would send it to me to post. Glad to see is is willing to work on the transparency problem.

I am real interested in the ByLaws answer specially when it takes a vote of the membership to change them.

I am real interested in the ByLaws answer specially when it takes a vote of the membership to change them.

Get the facts right, or read again:

Section 11.8 Amendments. Subject to repeal or change by action of the members, the power to alter, amend or repeal these Bylaws and adopt new Bylaws shall be vested in the Board of Governors, provided, however, that (i) any such action by the Board of Governors shall require an affirmative vote of two thirds of the votes cast and (ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of such class. An effort to repeal an action of the Board of Governors by the members may take place only at the annual members meeting, and can occur only upon approval by no less than two-thirds of the members present in person or by proxy.

Section 11.8 Amendments. Subject to repeal or change by action of the members, the power to alter, amend or repeal these Bylaws and adopt new Bylaws shall be vested in the Board of Governors, provided, however, that (i) any such action by the Board of Governors shall require an affirmative vote of two thirds of the votes cast and (ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of such class. An effort to repeal an action of the Board of Governors by the members may take place only at the annual members meeting, and can occur only upon approval by no less than two-thirds of the members present in person or by proxy.

Lloyd,

I stand by what I said. There has been an anouncement of ByLaw changes but no mention of an affirmative vote of two thirds of the membership to make them stand. The quiet way it is being done is so to take advantage of the short time the membership has to learn about it. Small turn-out at the Nationals/annual members meeting makes voting the change easy. It is an old political trick. Sad to say it usually works.

Don't stop reading Section 11.8 after "...with the Board of Governors". It follows that "...(ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members.." It seems pretty plain to me that the new classes for voting members, indeed limits the rights of a significant number of members. Under the new by-laws, the rank and file member will be represented by only one board member, whereas in the past, this class voted for 8 board members- two from each region. I do not see how this can be interpreted to not limit a class of voting members.

Don't stop reading Section 11.8 after "...with the Board of Governors". It follows that "...(ii) no change to these Bylaws shall eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member, unless such change is adopted by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members.." It seems pretty plain to me that the new classes for voting members, indeed limits the rights of a significant number of members. Under the new by-laws, the rank and file member will be represented by only one board member, whereas in the past, this class voted for 8 board members- two from each region. I do not see how this can be interpreted to not limit a class of voting members.

Very good point! It is a legality point which probably will not get challenged.

The new bylaws did not "eliminate a class of members of the corporation or limit or repeal the rights of any class of member" so did not require a vote of the membership.

The bylaws were developed along the guidelines of the USOC but were initiated prior to the USOC mandate. The bylaws were posted on the web page for member review and comment. Most suggestions were taken, including the addition of the "At Large" Board seat for members not belonging to another class. The Board then approved the bylaws. Since then, the board has amended the bylaws twice. The first time was to remove the voting rights of the remaining 4 Board members as required by the USOC in their letter. Recently they were amended to change the timeline for a later vote at the request of the Nominating and Governance Committee.

I am only stating the facts here as I feel I am entitled to do as a Board member. I have so much more to say, but I'll keep my opinions to myself for now. I hope that keeps me out of trouble. I'll wait to see Brad's response to the letter.

There once was an NAA till the bad wolf ...

I wish the NAA well. Things like this is why I switch to the NFAA this year. The NAA may soon be a very small organization. In my mind it will take a lot to turn this train around and right now it headed for empty tracks. Good luck RK and Jane, if your not successful can you please turn off the lights.